TexasCHLforum.com

I don't understand the 1st Amendment claim. The 1st Amendment protects the freedom to speak without criminal penatly. It doesn't guarantee you the courage to speak nor does it promise a willing or accepting audience. All it does guarantee you is freedom from persecution of law. My concealed carry doesn't prevent a professor or anyone else from speaking up, their cowardice dose.

That one read much better than the other ones! IF I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.... I would ask:
1) were guns banned from classrooms in the college shooting mentioned? Did that help?
2) Linked to the above question, would this law have made a difference in the victim count?
3) how many deaths, serious assaults, and sexual assaults have happened on the UT campus? Would crime slow down if the crimal THOUGHT the victim might ba carrying?
4) Professors have been assaulted on the UT campus before, perhaps if a professor fears for her life he/she should hire a off duty LEO to be in the classroom. UNARMED of course!

Excuse typos

The second amendment argument about "well regulated" meaning trained was interesting.

. The consequence is that, in Texas, the carrying of handguns is not “well-regulated” within the meaning of the Second Amendment because there has not been the imposition of proper discipline and training.

I would argue that the required training for the LTC is exactly the " imposition of proper discipline and training"

I'm not reading that garbage again.

DocV wrote:The second amendment argument about "well regulated" meaning trained was interesting.

. The consequence is that, in Texas, the carrying of handguns is not “well-regulated” within the meaning of the Second Amendment because there has not been the imposition of proper discipline and training.

I would argue that the required training for the LTC is exactly the " imposition of proper discipline and training"

The guy who mentioned the Israeli soldier saying our course was a joke was interesting considering how many of our police officers and military personnel have stated that their training not to carry with a round in the chamber is dangerous and foolish.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I'm not reading that garbage again.

Reading it is reminiscent of wading through a slime pond.

DocV wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I'm not reading that garbage again.

Reading it is reminiscent of wading through a slime pond.

The first round of slime was enough. There's no way this one is any less sludge filled.

Using their logic I should be able to have the city and county remove all stop signs that are on my route to work because they slow me down and therefore infringe on my first amendment right to talk to everyone in the office about work.

A few thoughts on the professors' response:

1. They are desperately trying to maintain a frivolous lawsuit that should never have been filed to begin with;

2. They admit to a "fresh take" on their second amendment analysis. LOL....Judges and lawyers know what that means.

3. It is alarming that they want the right to require conceal-carry students to identify themselves to their professors. That is an obvious attempt to chill, intimidate, and coerce students into NOT carrying---think grades. Not all students who attend the University of Texas major in basket-weaving. Many go on to professional schools or jobs after undergraduate study where grades are a significant factor in the selection process. Pompous professors with a bully-pulpit have enough power as it is over a student's grades---now they want to expand that power by learning who is carrying and not carrying.

We can hope Judge Yeakel sees through all the rhetoric and grants the Motion to Dismiss.

dlh wrote:A few thoughts on the professors' response:

1. They are desperately trying to maintain a frivolous lawsuit that should never have been filed to begin with;

2. They admit to a "fresh take" on their second amendment analysis. LOL....Judges and lawyers know what that means.

3. It is alarming that they want the right to require conceal-carry students to identify themselves to their professors. That is an obvious attempt to chill, intimidate, and coerce students into NOT carrying---think grades. Not all students who attend the University of Texas major in basket-weaving. Many go on to professional schools or jobs after undergraduate study where grades are a significant factor in the selection process. Pompous professors with a bully-pulpit have enough power as it is over a student's grades---now they want to expand that power by learning who is carrying and not carrying.

We can hope Judge Yeakel sees through all the rhetoric and grants the Motion to Dismiss.

Wow... just... wow. There were quite a number of mistakes in their complaint and the phrase "tortured logic" comes to mind.

Does anyone know if with their amended complaint they then get another shot at the retraining order?

Glockster wrote:Does anyone know if with their amended complaint they then get another shot at the retraining order?

A party can move for injunctive relief at any time during the proceeding when the facts relevant to the case demonstrate a need and the requirements for granting one are present. It would be fairly courageous to go back with another request on essentially the same facts and grounds as one previously denied.

Reading the paperwork, checking the authorities, reviewing the relevant standards and preparing a detailed order are non-trivial exercises, and judges usually have plenty to do without rebeating already dead dogs.

Filing an amended complaint is, in effect, a concession that the original one was not legally adequate, an attempt to overcome the defects in the original addressed in the Motion to Dismiss, thereby avoiding a dismissal.

Handling a case that appears to be one sided is far trickier than one where the facts and law make it an even fight. Judges try to avoid giving the hopelessly weak side an appearance of short shrift. They often go to great lengths to allow the weak side every chance to make their case, when even to the casual observer it is hopeless. It is expensive and aggravating to the stronger opponent. I once had a judge allow 5, count 'em, 5, amended pleadings in a case over a real estate commission where a writing was required to "pay" a commission, and the only writing signed by my client was to "accept" a commission. There was no possibility of pleading the required fact, but the court gave them 6 chances to torture the situation, if they could, to meet the requirement.

These professors should, in exchange, be willing to reveal their voting record and their personal beliefs about any subject that their students feel is necessary to them to receive full "academic freedom" from the professors.

I would have thought that the "English & Gender Studies" prof would have sufficient command of the English language to realize that
- the 1st Amendment guarantees her right to to tell her students "I don't like guns and don't want any in my classroom", and that
- said statement under 1st Amendment is in no way legally binding on anyone.

I also found their interpretation of "well-regulated militia" amusing. But not up to what college standards of reading and logic should be......

When someone wants to argue the militia clause with you, ask them to hypothetically assume a constitutional clause that says: "Overpopulation being of paramount concern in preserving the ecosystem of the planet, the right of a woman to an abortion shall not be infringed." Then fast forward to a time (such as now) of declining birth rates. Ask them if there should still be a right to an abortion. They will reply that there are other good reasons to preserve that right. Your answer is "Bingo."